Students face withdrawal, distress when cut off from Internet

University students from around the globe reported feelings of isolation, …

University students faced with a sudden Internet and media blackout begin to feel withdrawal symptoms after 24 hours, according to a study conducted by the University of Maryland's International Center for Media & the Public Agenda. The study followed the reactions of 1,000 students around the globe after they were asked to abstain from all forms of media for a day, leading the researchers to believe that Internet addiction is a real phenomenon, even if there's debate about it as a clinical diagnosis.

Students from 10 countries—including the US, Mexico, China, Argentina, the UK—all reported distress, isolation, confusion, boredom, and a feeling of addiction when they had to go 24 hours without any form of media, including Internet, music, games, news shows, and their cell phones. However, the numbers were not all equal—students from the US and China (mainland and Hong Kong) showed the highest percentages of feeling addicted, at 23 and 22 percent respectively.

Argentina had the highest percentage of students who said they failed completely at the experiment—23 percent—and, incidentally, Argentina also had the highest levels of isolation at 21 percent. Comparatively, Ugandan students were best able to go along with the experiment, and had the highest number of students who saw the benefits of unplugging—36 percent. (Perhaps Ugandans know something about life balance that the rest of us don't.)

Failure at completing the task was split between those who had moments of weakness and those who had to use media for work or their studies. As one student from Uganda pointed out, "The next day [my friends] called, sent mails, informed me since I had missed to meet the bosses to discuss on the progress of the video production course in Kampala. I cannot imagine life without media." For most, some form of media use was necessary, though others simply said they couldn't live without their entertainment or news.

Despite this, though, students from practically every country were quoted saying they envied those who aren't so dependent upon media. "I am always wondering why I become so dependent on these media now. When I was a child, I did not have these but I was also very happy everyday. Why? Why [does it look] like that today?" one student from China said.

Based on some of the other quotes highlighted in the study—one student from Argentina said he "felt dead" without media, one from the US said she was "itching like a crackhead," and a Lebanese student simply said the whole experience was "sickening"—it's no surprise students feel conflicted about their dependence on media. It's the ultimate "can't live with it, can't live without it" situation; students recognize that there are other joys in life besides media, yet most can't get through a single day without feeling distress over being disconnected.

The researchers, led by University of Maryland journalism and public policy professor Susan D. Moeller, said one of the most striking takeaways was that students no longer simply search for news—news comes to them via Twitter, Facebook, Web sidebars, e-mail, breaking news alerts sent to their phones, and so on. The report says that students themselves need to be taught how to properly curate their own news streams "as a life skill they need in both their personal and professional lives."

Undoubtedly, such a skill would help cut down on the feeling of media overload that many of us experience from time to time, and could even help temper feelings of anxiety when we don't have as much access to the Internet as we're used to. When we feel like we don't have to see everything—only the things that are truly important—it's easier to deal with a lack of media access.

As for whether Internet and media addiction is a real phenomenon, Moeller and her team didn't try to argue either way (they make a note in the report that they are not healthcare professionals, after all). They did write, however, that students reported not only a mental craving for information, but a physical craving for devices, with many addictive drug references. The medical profession itself is torn on Internet addiction as well—though some studies and physicians have supported the idea of Internet addiction as its own diagnosis, psychologists remain skeptical.

That skepticism hasn't stopped treatment centers from popping up, though. For example, a center in Washington state called reSTART opened up in 2009 and offers a 45-day treatment program for $14,500. Of course, learning about the program involves heading over to reSTART's website—better hope you have access to a device with an Internet connection. D'oh!

Did their definition of "media" also include magazines, newspapers, and books? I can do without "Internet, music, games, news shows, and their cell phones" for a day, but if you took away paper media as well (which in many cases is conveying the same content as electronic media), that would be tough.

That would be like having a power outage at night, and discovering that your candles and flashlights also don't work.

The study followed the reactions of 1,000 students around the globe after they were asked to abstain from all forms of media for a day, leading the researchers to believe that Internet addiction is a real phenomenon, even if there's debate about it as a clinical diagnosis.

I conducted a study where I had a sample abstain from eating all forms of food for a day, and I concluded that raisin addiction was a real phenomenon.

In a media class at university we were assigned a 24-hour media moratorium and reflection very similar to this experiment. I recall it being slightly difficult to abstain, but mostly because I kept forgetting that I wasn't supposed to be using any media and would catch myself unthinkingly about to go online or watch TV. On the whole though, it wasn't too bad and I certainly didn't feel "cravings" or anything akin to a physical withdrawal, but on the other hand I knew it was for a limited amount of time, and I was living in the dorms surrounded by friends and other people to distract me. If it were more long-term, and I was living in more relative isolation, I think it would have been significantly more difficult. But honestly why limit it to students or student-age kids? They're not the generation who spawned the term "crackberry", after all.

I can go without internet access for a while, because my Gmail inbox and Google Reader will hold the stuff I read often for my viewing later. Things like daily news and affairs are easy to substitute with alternatives such as TV, radio and newspapers.

I'm significantly older than the study group, but I've been plugged in nearly ever day since the early '90s and now I have two laptops, a tablet and two smartphones I carry with me at various times. It would be difficult for me to disconnect permanently, but I personally find it refreshing to unplug for a few days and experience life once in a while.

I think there may be a social problem with the younger generation who have never known an internet-less life. It might be good for parents to force kids to put away the iPod and game console and get outside and play.

When I was growing up our Mom would switch off the TV and kick us out of the house, and for that I couldn't be more grateful. I have memories of the best summers of my life to show for it; summers spent being a kid, playing baseball, riding my bike and experiencing life. Given the choice, we may have wasted a significant part of our childhoods parked in front of the tube.

It's so sad to see so many empty ball diamonds these days with kids rarely interested in doing anything outdoors. The students in the study group may be the product of this new culture and I think it's sad.

I would probably go through withdrawal if I lost the internet at my house for a couple days. A lot of the things I do at home to entertain myself rely on the internet. I'd just get pretty bored after a while I suppose.

I can easily live without it for days if I'm elsewhere. Like I went camping last summer and you couldn't even get a cell phone signal to make a call. I had no problem not knowing what was going on in the world.

I'm not much of a social networking person. I only check Facebook once or twice a week.

Nobody tell the FDA or they may add media devices to the Controlled Substances list, schedule 1 of course. Then Lindsay Graham will come out and declare a trillion dollar War on Media Devices and suppress inflammatory speech like people burning iPads.

As someone else asked, are they considering books media? I'm mean their suppose to be students right? Shouldn't any student be able to spend one freaking day reading in order to relax instead of surfing or watching tv? Perhaps as Fenderbender mentioned, it's just because I grew up before the INTERNET existed, but I don't have any trouble doing without tv or the computer as long as I have a book or ten on hand. I will say, that I've gotten really, really used to reading on my kindle now though. I'm not sure if that would count or not, but I certainly could read with paper books if I lost my kindle access.

Nobody tell the FDA or they may add media devices to the Controlled Substances list, schedule 1 of course. Then Lindsay Graham will come out and declare a trillion dollar War on Media Devices and suppress inflammatory speech like people burning iPads.

Picture a large heaping pile of electronic devices if you will. Now recall that most of these devices are made with rare earth metals, and that Apple iDevices are sealed so the consumer can't remove the battery.

Half the pile explodes, and the other half emits a toxic cloud of smoke. :D

I have no problem completely unplugging for a few days for a vacation, but if my internet or power goes out for an extended period of several hours, I'm not necessarily so happy. I lived through the constant email phase, the IM phase, and mostly skipped the social network phase. Ninety-nine percent of the time, none of this stuff is that important, not even news. It's busy work for your brain, to give you the illusion of accomplishing something or a distraction from thinking on your own. It's like junk food: there's nothing wrong with a little, but few people can resist indulging.

The fact that people miss an activity probably only means that it has become an important part of their lives. The implication of the importance of the internet to someone depends highly on exactly what the person was doing over the internet. If someone depends on the internet for doing their work or for important information about the outside world, it would hardly be surprising that its loss provoked anxiety. It may be more of a problem if the internet enables someone to spend an excessive amount of time with games, gambling, or some other form of activity that distracts them from activities that are required for them to sustain their lives. But this kind of study usually is a product of mediocre scientists in need of some superficial topical subject matter to justify their grants and of value systems that make ideological assumptions about what is "healthy" for people to do with their lives. If someone wants to compare the internet with heroin, cocaine, nicotine, or alcohol, they really need to do the biochemistry to show that there is some physiological similarity between a person's experience of internet use and drug addiction. Otherwise, the study is likely just another piece of the academic waste that is the side effect of our limited ability to focus our dollars on research that actually has some real value.

I look at the internet as immediately accessible information. If ever I need information, it is the first place I go. Once the copyrights for books have caught up with the technology, all books will be available online as well. There won't be a reason to leave your computer for information-specific purposes.

I think it intrudes when it becomes our sole access to entertainment, and other aspects of life - i.e. to help us sleep (I know people who need to fall asleep with the t.v. on, or their laptop at their side with southpark going). I'm not about to say this is wrong by any means, but there's no doubt in my mind that it's taking away other experiences we could be having.

One thing it does help though, are the socially inept. Anyone can find a welcoming community online these days. I would count that as a huge positive, whether or not you want to argue they should be working on meeting new people. Hell, maybe I'm socially inept.

...but young people certainly do seem unhealthily dependent on their devices.

I certainly don't question the feelings discussed in the article, as they absolutely personally jive with my own experience. I definitely have difficulty if cut off from access to my machines. What I would like to see more debate on, however, is the implicit assumption you make in the bit of opinion that I highlighted above: that such connectedness is "unhealthy." What I disagree with are the feelings expressed in this bit:

Quote:

Despite this, though, students from practically every country were quoted saying they envied those who aren't so dependent upon media.

I don't, in fact quite the opposite. If we go by analogy with the cerebral cortex being the outermost layer of the cerebrum, and key to many aspects of higher order intelligence, I would consider my network to be an "exocortex," which further enhances my memory, processing, and so on. I wish implants were available already so that we could offload and backup more storage and processing as needed, and have further enhanced access to data. The sooner we can dump these garbage meat bodies except as novelties the better.

I don't think it's a dependence on the devices so much as a dependence on connectivity. When I went to India recently I had no reliable internet access and while I missed being able to check my e-mail or look things up on the fly it wasn't a big deal. When I travelled through Europe with some people, though, none of us had cell phones and it was a huge deal and for the first few days we all did feel pretty cut off and isolated.

The difference was the culture we were in. Wandering around rural India I was with family it didn't matter because I didn't do anything. I just sat around and had a chauffeur to take me places and just hung out with family. There was no planning involved. Wandering around Europe with my peer group, though, we had trouble coordinating or making plans because we've gotten so used to being able to keep in touch whenever we need to. Once you're in the habit of changing things on the fly agendas become flexible. If you don't have that power it takes a little while for people to get used to the idea that "Meet in the lobby at 7:30" means you meet in the lobby at precisely 7:30 because if you're not there nobody knows what the hell is keeping you.

Connectivity has changed the way we organize ourselves. You can't expect someone to be an island unto themselves and function without the tools that everyone else assumes you have. It doesn't make sense.

It's hardly an addition. It is rather a necessary extension of our lives at this point. Most of your company communication occurs through email or on the phone. It is how you obtain most of your information today. It's fast, efficient and direct. Having to unplug makes things frustratingly inefficient. Imagine your commute to work if you couldn't use a personal vehicle. You might take public transportation, or maybe a taxi. Regardless, it requires planning and dependence on another entity. It requires you to make a concentrated effort to undertake something so previously simple.

I couldn't go back to a world where I got my news from television, radio, or the newspaper. I couldn't keep in touch with old friends without facebook. I couldn't remember the address of every good restaurant around the half dozen offices I frequently visit.

I spend my entire working week connect to the intraweb. I have 24 email subfolders, the company database development in a virtual machine and when I am not working on that there's always the corporate website and about 100 daft web or server related issues. I have my email connected to gmail and never miss one and have copies of most current projects in the cloud.

Did I mention I have five computers two satellite boxes a modified Xbox for XBMC and one of those lan Blu-Ray players? The family mobiles are also connected too. If I could only connect the fridge and the coffee machine the system would be complete.

However, every summer we go off for at least two weeks camping holiday and despite the fact that almost all mainland campsites are wi-fied to the max I never ever take any connected equipment apart from a phone which sits in the glove comparment unused. I don't even have a TV.

Despite these digital hardships, not only do I suffer no ill effects whatsoever, the thought never even crosses my mind. Unless reading a book counts.

I only ever miss my really warm duvet from home. Sleeping bags are sometimes so claustraphobic.

I remember in the 90s when I first grasped the idea that we'd never need encyclopedias on our shelves anymore...that not just my information would live in the machine, but that pretty much all recorded public knowledge could be instantly accessed. At the time it blew my mind and was even a little overwhelming.

Saying that people feel distress when their devices are taken away is unecesarilly dismissive and, I'd imagine, incorrect. The feeling of connectivity and access to all knowledge is powerful and reassuring. It is reasonable for someone to feel anxious if that's taken away, even temporarily. We would all experience similar anxiety if, say, basic municipal services were temporarily halted, even if we knew they'd return.

This actually reminds me of my retarded philosophy teacher in college. He loved the topic of "When is the line crossed where the machine controls the creator?" as if he were being superbly deep or something. He takes the idea of dependence, and interprets it as control. "Aren't you being controlled by your car right now? What would you do without it? Your phone? Your Laptop?" Too bad my need for a degree stopped me from shoving his face into the wall. It's impossible to debate with someone who's that out of touch.

If I may be permitted to use my once yearly car analogy: Isn't this like taking away the vehicles from a person for a day, and then acting surprised when they can't make it into work or do their grocery shopping? Are we addicted to transportation in the same way that we're apparently addicted to communication?

I'm almost 50 and I feel withdrawal symptoms when my internet goes down. I live in an isolated community approximately 300km from the nearest major centre. My internet connection keeps me connected to the outside world and I feel even more isolated when it goes down.

Add my name to the list of people that think hat characterizing technology-dependence as an addiction is to completely miss the point.

It is similar to someone characterizing machine-dependence during the industrial revolution as an addiction. Is it an "addiction" or is it simply an advance in human development on a more fundamental level?

Remove the primary method a large group of people use for communication with the world and there are negative reactions?

Shocking....

Exactly. I think you're looking at more a reaction to the removal of what have become normalized pathways to socialization in many cases... many people react poorly to being forced into a situation where they are unable to socialize in the way they had previously, regardless of what the exact change was. The ultimate example, of course, being putting someone in absolute isolation from any source of interaction with other people.

Quote:

It's busy work for your brain, to give you the illusion of accomplishing something or a distraction from thinking on your own. It's like junk food: there's nothing wrong with a little, but few people can resist indulging.

Junk food or not, your brain needs stimulation. The more intelligence an animal exhibits the more mental stimulation it requires to continue acting "normally." Removing what has become a normal source of stimulation for you without providing a desirable (as perceived by the subject) alternative is going to see fairly severe symptoms. It's easy to show the same behavior in animals like (the more intelligent especially) dogs when you change and restrict their available mental stimulation outlets. An otherwise calm dog can become extremely high strung and in turn what to us is termed destructive as it searches for an outlet when you remove the ones it has grown accustomed to. Over time that same animal can either be re-accustomed to another (if acceptable to its needs) outlet or can be reintroduced to the previous outlet and see a complete turn around in behavior.

I'm not convinced that "the internet" and "media" isn't just one form of an outlet, and I'm also not convinced that studies like this aren't just being overly lax with (at the least) implied causality to jump on a media bandwagon and get some extra coverage while misdirecting attention as to root causes.

Granted, this isn't complete isolation, but you often see fairly similar complaints when dealing with someone who suddenly can't talk or can't write who was previously relying primarily on those modes of communication. People who are struck deaf later in life tend to show similar forms of "withdrawal" and frustration especially when they were previously quite social. We like our patterns and most form a sense of security in staying within the boundaries of the patterns that become familiar. We like our mental stimulation. Anything that affects both at once is going to have negative repercussions, I think. The "internet oh noes" part seems like it's probably just a red herring to the underlying behavioral aspects. It's too bad because I think the underlying subject deserves and needs more study and especially more exposure, it's very easy for certain behaviors within that paradigm to become harmful or even rise to the point of classification as a clinical disorder.

Comparatively, Ugandan students were best able to go along with the experiment, and had the highest number of students who saw the benefits of unplugging—36 percent. (Perhaps Ugandans know something about life balance that the rest of us don't.)

Ugandans also have more things to worry about than the Internet, I wouldn't completely chalk it up to better life balance.

This article seems to use the words "media" and "internet" interchangeably, which makes it very hard to follow. I do not understand exactly what these people had to give up from when they agreed to "abstain from all forms of media for a day".

Add my name to the list of people that think hat characterizing technology-dependence as an addiction is to completely miss the point.

It is similar to someone characterizing machine-dependence during the industrial revolution as an addiction. Is it an "addiction" or is it simply an advance in human development on a more fundamental level?

To restate what I said a bit more succinctly, I think the most apt characterization would be that we're seeing social stimulation and similar mental stimulation "withdrawal" where "the internet" just happens to be one mode of many to achieving that stimulation. Due to the way our minds rely on repetitive patterns, even the opportunity for other modes of reaching those forms of stimulation can't at least immediately overcome the feeling of loss for many, even ignoring the unique aspects of something like the internet in terms of things like long distance social connections.

Easy familiar patterns of behavior are often blinding to alternatives in the short term to many. Even ignoring the stimulation and social aspects, disrupting behavioral patterns can have similar effects short term, even in something deemed otherwise completely innocuous.

Quote:

This article seems to use the words "media" and "internet" interchangeably, which makes it very hard to follow. I do not understand exactly what these people had to give up from when they agreed to "abstain from all forms of media for a day".

To be fair, I'm not sure I did either, and it was confusing. I'll look more later tonight, but a first glance at the linked "study site" leaves me even more leery of the entire thing, it looks like a political campaign site if anything, and seems to use charged wording and appeals to emotion throughout, while being very light on statistics and examples of questions. I'm very leery of just what and how these polls were conducted, it's far too easy to test for the wrong things or introduce bias in the results even unintentionally. Is this even a valid scientific study, or is it a publicity stunt to collect anecdotes and cute quotes? That's how it reads from a quick first glance and some clicking through.

The study followed the reactions of 1,000 students around the globe after they were asked to abstain from all forms of media for a day, leading the researchers to believe that Internet addiction is a real phenomenon, even if there's debate about it as a clinical diagnosis.

I conducted a study where I had a sample abstain from eating all forms of food for a day, and I concluded that raisin addiction was a real phenomenon.

I am honestly not surprised by this. I am though more worried about the lack of manners people have today when it comes to technology and their gadgets. This is especially true in college classrooms. Unless I am waiting for an important phone call or text (like the dealer saying my car is ready, or my wife is in labor) I would never use my phone in class. But, I see early 20 somethings and teens right out of highschool plugging away at their phones, texting and surfing the web in my classes. It annoys me that they are interrupting my time when the teacher has to say something about it. I'm already putting up with the fact that I have to take a joint 4000/6000 section, now I have to deal with undergraduates taking up class time because they can't wait to check Facebook. Maybe it is an age thing. I am a decade older than most of them, or maybe it is because I didn't have a cell until I first started college and I am not as reliant on it. Of course it could be that they need some manners pounded into them.

When the power goes off at my house (with my wife and teenage son) for several hours, there is definitely a feeling of discomfort by our entire family (with no TV, internet, electric light). We don't have smart phones (due to cost) so, that can't be an internet substitute. Our family is tech savy and we get enjoyment/reinforcement from modern technology. Take that away, and it is hard to instantly adjust routines to a pre 1900 lifestyle.

PavJ wrote:

When I went to India recently I had no reliable internet access and while I missed being able to check my e-mail or look things up on the fly it wasn't a big deal.

As for vacations where there is less technology, I don't think that is a good measure of the effect of tech removal. If a person is camping/visiting a stunning location (Grand Canyon, Bali), there is massive amounts of stimulation being in a new, often exotic area. For most people these new vacation experiences substitute for the reinforcement from modern technology imo.

Lyle Lanley wrote:

But honestly why limit it to students or student-age kids?

Why are students (usually first year/college freshmen) often used in studies? They are just a population which is easlily available to university researchers.